HURRONATH ROY Vs. GOBIND CHUNDER DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a suit brought to recover rent at an enhanced rate after notice of enhancement for turuf Oomedpore, a dependent talook comprised within the Plaintiff's 3a. 4g. share of the zemindary pergunnah Mahomedshahee in zillah Jessore. The suit was brought in the Revenue Court under Act X. of 1859. The collector who tried the case thought that the rent ought to be enhanced, and he decreed accordingly. He says : "The case has been pending since 1862, when the issues were first fixed after hearing the pleadings on both sides. I come to the conclusion that the only issue on which there is any dispute between the parties is that first laid down, viz., whether the provisions of sections 15 and 16, Act X. of 1859, do not apply to the talook regarding the rents of which the present suit is brought, and whether the rent under these circumstances can be enhanced. Defendant's mooktear admits the fairness of the pergunnah rates assessed, but bases all his resistance to the paying of the enhanced rent on the principle above mentioned. I do not think there can be any doubt that the rent can be enhanced under the power conveyed in the two decisions above quoted" (referring to two decisions of the Sudder Court of the 30th April, 1821, and of the 11th December, 1860, respectively, which will be considered presently). The collector proceeds,--"It is distinctly laid down there that the rents of talook Oomedpore may be enhanced by the Plaintiff after issuing the notices required by law at the pergunnah rates, and in the face of these decisions of the highest judicial authorities I cannot see that the plea of Defendant can for a moment be entertained, accordingly reject it."

(2.) THE case came on appeal before the High Court, who thought that the main question was whether, under the circumstances, the rent admittedly never having varied, the talookdar was not now protected by Section 15, Act X. of 1859, and desired that the argument might be confined to this point, and having heard both parties upon it, were of opinion that, under the provisions of the 15th section of Act X. of 1859, the Defendant was protected from enhancement, and they decreed accordingly.

(3.) THOSE are grounds, though not accurately expressed, upon which the rents of ryots having rights of occupancy are liable to enhancement, under Section 17 of Act X. of 1859; but they are not applicable to a dependent talook like the present, which was created before the decennial settlement. Talooks of that description are protected by Section 51 of Regulation VIII. of 1793, from enhancement, except under the circumstances therein mentioned. See also Regulation XL IV. of 1793, Section 7. The decree of the collector, therefore, could, not be supported even if the rent of the talook were liable to enhancement under the provisions of Section 51 of Regulation VIII. of 1793.